Gujarat is often showcased as a model of efficient water governance, a state that has seemingly overcome the challenges of scarcity through robust infrastructure and managerial reforms. FHTC reports of 2022 under the Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) provide data on the progress of supplying Functional Household Tap Connections (FHTC) to every rural home in India by 2024 (extended to 2028).
These reports track metrics such as coverage percentage, water quality, and supply regularity to ensure reliable and long-term potable water access for all rural households. A district-wise analysis across the state’s 33 districts drawn from FHTC reports paints an uneven and complex picture. While certain urbanised and industrial districts such as Surat, Ahmedabad, and Vadodara show near-universal household water adequacy, vast rural and peripheral areas continue to grapple with scarcity, irregularity, and contamination.
A State Divided by Water
The data, disaggregated into five regional clusters — South, Central, North, Saurashtra, and Kachchh — reveals sharp spatial inequities:
- South Gujarat (Surat, Navsari, Dang, etc.) shows strong performance with 97% adequacy and 95% potability on average. However, Tapi reports 100% adequacy but only 65% regularity (Comparative Brief, 2024: South Gujarat section).
- Central Gujarat (Vadodara, Anand, Kheda, etc.) fares well overall, but Dahod reports only 42% adequacy and 33% regularity, among the weakest in the state.
- North Gujarat (Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Mehsana, etc.) achieves adequacy levels above 90%, but potability plunges to 74% in Mehsana and 61% in Sabarkantha, underscoring contamination challenges.
- Saurashtra presents a stark contrast: Porbandar and Rajkot record adequacy above 90%, while Devbhumi Dwarka reports only 37% adequacy and 40% regularity.
- Kachchh, with its vast arid terrain, continues to struggle with salinity and spatial disparities despite desalination efforts.
The Politics of Adequacy and the Limits of Indicators
Gujarat appears to have achieved impressive state-level figures — adequacy above 90% and potability around 92%. Yet these numbers conceal ground realities. In Tapi, for example, 100% adequacy masks irregular and unpredictable delivery. In Dahod, nearly 99% potability provides little relief when the quantity is insufficient for daily use. This underscores the limits of performance metrics focused narrowly on “functional tap connections” instead of actual service reliability and affordability.
Urban Advantage, Rural Neglect
Urbanised districts such as Surat, Ahmedabad, and Vadodara consistently outperform the rest of the state, reflecting institutional capacity and access to surface water. Meanwhile, tribal and hilly districts (Dahod, Narmada) and coastal districts (Dwarka, Amreli, Bhavnagar) remain structurally disadvantaged. This disparity stems not only from geography but also from policy bias favouring industrial and urban areas — where water reuse and cost recovery are feasible.
Water Quality: The Invisible Crisis
In North Gujarat, groundwater contamination presents a silent crisis. Sabarkantha (61% potability) and Mehsana (74%) exemplify the risks of overdependence on declining aquifers and inadequate chlorination. Despite official claims of safe water, inconsistent bacteriological testing and irregular chlorine monitoring undermine credibility.
The Coastal Challenge: Salinity and Scarcity
Saurashtra and Kachchh face dual challenges of salinity intrusion and scarcity. Coastal districts like Dwarka, Amreli, and Bhavnagar register the state’s lowest adequacy levels despite years of investment in desalination and long-distance water transfers. Overreliance on these capital-intensive projects raises concerns about sustainability and environmental cost, as local solutions such as rainwater harvesting and groundwater recharge remain underfunded.
Gujarat’s Uneven Model
- The state-level data reveals three recurring patterns:
- High adequacy but poor regularity (e.g., Tapi, South Gujarat)
- Low adequacy but high potability (e.g., Dahod, Dwarka)
- High adequacy but low potability (e.g., Mehsana, Sabarkantha)
Each pattern signals a disconnect between infrastructure and governance outcomes. Gujarat’s water success story, therefore, appears partial and uneven, highlighting the need for service equity rather than mere coverage expansion.
To correct these imbalances, region-specific strategies are essential:
- Tribal and hilly areas (Dahod, Narmada): strengthen source development and equitable distribution.
- Groundwater-dependent North Gujarat: intensify quality testing and address chemical contamination.
- Coastal Saurashtra and Kachchh: combine desalination with recharge and decentralised storage.
- South Gujarat: address scheduling inefficiencies (e.g., Tapi) and improve treatment systems (e.g., Bharuch).
Conclusion
Gujarat’s achievements in expanding water infrastructure are undeniable. However, the district-level evidence shows that coverage does not equal access, and adequacy does not ensure equity. Unless Gujarat shifts from a focus on infrastructure to sustained, inclusive service delivery, its reputation as a water governance model will remain incomplete — strong in pipes and pumps, but weak in people and justice.
---
*alka@peopleincentre.org
Comments